Important to Local Bodies.

Gisborne Standard and Cook County Gazette, Volume II, Issue 181, 11 August 1888, Page 1

Important to Local Bodies.

At the sitting of the Auckland Supreme Court in banco, a matter of great importance to local governing bodies, to ratepayers, and to purchasers of land put up for sale in default of payment of rates, was argued. The case was that of E. A. Mackechnie and Elizabeth Catherine Chamberlin, trustees under the will of the late Henry Chamberlin, against the Waitemata County Council, and Mr H. O. Brewer, Registrar of the Supreme Court. Mr Theo. Cooper appeared for the plaintiffs, Mr H. Campbell for the County Council, and Mr E. Hesketh for Mr Brewer. At a recent sitting of the Court in chambers, the Court on application, fixed the day for the argument on points of law. The cause of action arose out of a claim made in the Resident Magistrate’s Court, in which judgment was given for rates by default, but the wrong sections were sold, and a conveyance of the land sold was given by the registrar. The facts as stated by Mr Cooper in his opening argument, were 'that the Waitemata County Council issued a summons for rates against a Mr T. G. Simmonds, who was rated for lots, 34 and 35, Hobsonville, Parish of Waipareira. The plaint note described the property as lots 34 and 35, Parish of Waipareira; the particulars of demand attached had also the word “ Hobsonville. ” A judgment was obtained in due course, and under the Rating Act 1882 the Council sent to the Registrar of the Supreme Court a certificate which stated the property to be allotment, 34. and 35 Waipareira, omitting the word Hobsonville. In point of fact allotments 34. and 85, Waipareira, were owned by Mr Chamberlin, whose executors were the present plaintiffs. The Registrar, acting under the certificate, sold Mr Chamberlin’s land, and executed under the Act, a conveyance of that land. No rates were due on Chamberlin’s land, which was a totally distinct property from Simmonds’. The conveyance was registered against Chamberlin’s land, and the question for the opinion of the Court was whether the title of the land passed by that conveyance. Mr Cooper quoted the various sections of the Act, and con? tended that section 44 gave the purchaser a complete title to the land mentioned on it. That section provided that no purchaser should be bound to enquire as to whether the sale was properly made under the Act, or be affected by any notice, expressed or implied, of any impropriety or irregularity in connection with the sale, and he tilted A decision of Mr Justipe Ward’s, holding that that section gave the purchaser a Parliamentary title. He contended that th® effect of that section was to give the purchaser a title to the land sold, and to remove necessity for him to inquire into a validity of the sale. He argued at length in support of his contention. Mr E. Hesketh, for the registrar, sub? mitted that the judgment and the fact ■whether or not rates were due was the foundation of the title, and not the certificate or the conveyance. If there were no rates due, then the Registrar I could not sell and could not sign a ! conveyance. Section 44 was no protection to the purchaser, unless there existed a valid judgment in respect of rates .due. He quoted several author!- ; ties in support of his contention, and also several sections of the Rating Act. Mr Campbell, for the Council, argued to the same effect, laying special stress upon the rates having to be due as a condition precedent to the sale. Mr Cooper, in reply, contended that section 44 having stated that no purchaser was bound to inquire whether the sale was properly made under the Act. the authorities quoted were outside the question, which was what the real meaning o f the section. If it had not the meaning he for, it was valueless as a' protection. p ls care " fully reviewed the sect.' on *?u* n the',question, and stated th-' 4, £ B ;g. which Mr Cooper contended i. lature had given was an extraoiu one, and he musttherefore construe .

section very strictly. It was nothing short of this, that if that power existed, one man’s land could be sold for another man’s rates. Considering the whole of the sections of the Act, he thought Mr Hesketh had correctly stated their effect, when he said that only property on which rates were due could be sold. The Registrar was acting without jurisdiction in selling Mr Chamberlin's property, and the conveyance had no legal effect. He therefore decided the question in the negative, namely, that no title to Mr Chamberlin's land passed by the conveyance,